Talk:May 2024 solar storms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gallery[edit]

Hello! I am mew to Wikipedia editing so my skills are not that good lol. Can someone add a gallery section for photos taken of the aurora? Hunalbe19 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also needs to add a thumbnail picture too. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:B9FD:BCAF:8324:F06D (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery Section added. Modify as need be. Jsinned (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible disruption?[edit]

do we have information about possible disruption to communications that could/have happened? i was hearing on the news that they where saying it might disrupt satellites or something. 50tr5 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @50tr5. A recent press release from NOAA/SWPC mentions that there have been reports of power grid irregularities and degradation to high-frequency communications and GPS; however, they do not provide any additional details. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 17:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit about Starlink & the US govt. response from FEMA and the DOE to the article. Just thought I'd put here a few links mentioning preparations for the storm from power & communications companies to add to that, and help to give the article a less American bias.
Just as a start. SpacePod9 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing much here in south-central Pennsylvania, which is unusual in that with fairly modest geomagnetic storms due to local geology, I usually get sufficient spikes to crash at least half of my computing equipment and that's remained entirely absent for this event. To hazard a guess, I suspect the currents are being induced in a different orientation than usual, which isn't inducing as many spikes in our infrastructure, given the less than usual orientation of the solar flux impacting the earth currently. A guess only, as it's not as if I have a magnetometer to get actual local readings, only behavior of our local power grid.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

Alright. Just as Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024, are we going to let gallery turn into a 30-image section? There's no need of it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is about clarity and not turning Gallery into 1651-image section. Also adding more images from different countries than USA and UK cannot go wrong, can it? Peter2346 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections against adding photographs of the event in other countries. But which other countries? How many other countries? What is the quality of the files added? I made sure to remove only the low-quality ones. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have this objection. Why the Poland picture got removed? It definitely isn't low-quality one. If I cannot add my image, okay. But why deleting actually decent-quality ones? The picture from Poland matches the requirements to be there and in my opinions it's better than the picture from East Sussex or South Carolina.. Now this feels like the event only happened in the UK & USA...
How many other countries? - 5 is enough. 3 images from Europe (from 2-3 countries) and the rest from Australia. Peter2346 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, with WP:GALLERY in mind, we should only keep images taken from low latitudes (e.g., the southern US) in order to illustrate/emphasize their unusual extent. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 15:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest both latitudes and regions, as Asia has yet to have a gallery entry, nor has the entire southern hemisphere and well, it *is* a global phenomena that's unusual in behavior and frequency.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intensity of the aurora is also a major part of this story. The extent south of the phenomenon is very unusual, but so was the freakish scene looking up from more northern latitudes. I'm 57, and I've never seen anything like this in my life. I think someone living on Gran Canaria would say the same thing. It was a once in a lifetime event for a lot of people, but for different reasons. I'm not pushing to add my photos. (I don't think I have much to add.) I'm pushing to consider a broader context. The story here is more than just distance from magnetic north. Dcs002 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - it was an historic event. Not that Solar eclipses aren't, but they've been more commonly seen over the entire world and happen on schedule - this is quite frankly a once in 20 year event. THEORACLE (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'll admit to being biased since I have my own photo in the gallery, and I just added one another user captured in Chile, but we could really use some diversity and/or culling to the gallery. Do we really need ~10 photos/videos to be from similar latitudes in northern Europe out of 17 in the gallery, with 5 of those being from the UK alone? SpacePod9 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should actually be noted somewhere that the Canary Islands, represented in the gallery by a photo from Gran Canaria, is off the coast of southern Morocco. A part of Spain that's geographically in North Africa.
But it would be nice to have a few more photos from the southern hemisphere (and maybe fewer from northern Europe: the one from Sweden looking straight up is quite spectacular though and I'd definitely argue for keeping it). In Johannesburg the aurora was barley a glimmer on the southern horizon (anecdotally, my own view of the southern horizon is completely obscured by buildings), and I have no photographs to contribute unfortunately. ENEvery (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a bunch of those "looking straight up" photos that really look spectacular. If that's a valid criterion I can add something, but I get the impression that spectacular images aren't what people want in this article as much as geographic spread, which is fine because it seems to be a consensus. (I took mine in Minnesota. It was a once in a lifetime, my lifetime anyway, event here for its brilliance and complexity.) I'll post a few of mine to the WM Commons and leave them there. Dcs002 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed the singular southern hemisphere image from the gallery, I did an undo, let's consider paring down the entries on the northern hemisphere and add southern hemisphere entries to balance the article and illustrate both hemispheres were equally impacted, which they were.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest weeding some of the redundant UK gallery images, given the sheer volume of them at this time.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So hard to pick! I removed a few that had other images at similar locations. A few more could probably go. What I suggest we not do is pounce on newbie contributions two minutes after they're added. This isn't vandalism, folks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal IP (?)[edit]

Can someone check this edit? RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely looks like vandalism. Looks like they blanked out an entire section. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:B9FD:BCAF:8324:F06D (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations[edit]

Hi everyone, fairly new editor here, I've added citations to the Geomagnetic storm sections for the different places the aurora could be seen from. Hopefully this is helpful. Thanks. BeigeTeleprinter (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Does the latitude on the pictures refer to geographic latitude or magnetic latitude? 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:B9FD:BCAF:8324:F06D (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like geographic. Pinging @Moscow Mule who had added them. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 17:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geographic, taken from the {{coords}} templates on the corresponding articles. The idea was to provide a quick comparison for non-expert readers or anyone with trouble visualizing how further south (eg) South Carolina is than Kraków. Would an explanatory footnote help? Moscow Mule (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful since it isn't clear from context. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 18:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Geographic latitude vs. magnetic. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered adding in the magnetic latitude of each location, do y'all think it'd be a worthwhile addition? StormChaserAmelia (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StormChaserAmelia I think it would be helpful as long as we add it alongside geographic latitude. If it is added we should also reference the model that was used (e.g., IGRF-13).
This converter may be helpful if anyone has a chance to add them. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 06:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some free time today, I'll get working on it. I think that's the same geomagnetic latitude calculator I've used for my own personal aurora chasing StormChaserAmelia (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't geomagnetic storms give erroneous readings on one's measured geomagnetic latitude?Wzrd1 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is using a computational model, so it shouldn't be affected. StormChaserAmelia (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone remove the deletion template on image[edit]

The image clearly displays a Creative Commons Attribution license on the actual image. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:B9FD:BCAF:8324:F06D (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://kp.gfz-potsdam.de/en/legal-notice 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:B9FD:BCAF:8324:F06D (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor edits on 12 May around 18:11[edit]

Mention of "suggesting storms are over and alleging some drive (uncited) to name the storms after Dr Jenn Gannon, given the ongoing storm activity, lack of citation for the claim and the uncited claim of an attempt or drive to name the storms, keep or remove?Wzrd1 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to remove this data as it really does not add to the context of the article. This seems like random side issues that may or may not be relevant. Perhaps if the drive to name the storm actually succeeds, then it would be relevant to amend the article to include this information. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest grouping of some pics from the gallery to illustrate aurora forms[edit]

Different forms of aurorae were documented, including all five of Clark's classifications: glows, patches, arcs, rays, and coronas.[1] Top left: Glow aurora seen in Quillón, Chile. Top right: Patch aurora seen in Hereford, Colorado. Middle left: Arc aurora seen in East Sussex, UK. Middle right: Rays across an arc aurora seen in Vancouver, Canada. Bottom: Divergence point of a coronal aurora seen in Brastad, Sweden.

First, I gave Aurorae its own subheading under Geomagnetic storms. It's an extremely important part of this story. And I would like to take 4 images out of the gallery (and one more from the WM Commons) and use them in a multiple image section on auroral forms, as described in the Aurora article. Thoughts?

Dcs002 (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Dcs002 (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The article could still use more text. I expect that will be forthcoming. For now this multi-image display overlaps the smaller gallery. That won't be a problem with a little more expansion of the article. Dcs002 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Clark, Stuart (2007). "Astronomical fire: Richard Carrington and the solar flare of 1859". Endeavour. 31 (3): 104–109. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2007.07.004. PMID 17764743.

Gallery suggestion[edit]

I propose we just enforce a hard limit of 2 or 3 images per country as a maximum, to balance against the onslaught of US and UK images. Maple Doctor (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest instead of enforcing some arbitrary limit that we focus on genuine value to the article. Arbitrary limits might feel just, but also limit the potential quality of the article. WP guidelines say that each item in the gallery should illustrate something unique. Let's focus on that. What does each image contribute that the others don't? Geographic spread of the aurorae is a valid contribution, but not the only one. Dcs002 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - see what is currently to the right, all five kinds of aurorae being demonstrated in various images. Maybe a few different images of each kind of aurora would be valuable. I would add some photos that I took but where I was I only got glows and patches, which would probably be easy enough to find higher-quality photos of elsewhere. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the tag on the gallery is warranted. (I don't know who added it, so this comment is not directed at you, @OverzealousAutocorrect.) This is still a very new article, and we don't know how it will evolve. As of now there are 12 pictures in the gallery from across the globe and far from the magnetic poles. By comparison there are 35 pictures in the gallery on the April 8 solar eclipse page. Again, I think geographic extent is a valid reason to show photos. I just don't think it should be limited to that. Right now the gallery looks awkward because I added that section to the right, which squished the gallery to the left and elongated it, and I think some of the pictures were made bigger by how it's auto-formatted. (I'm not sure how that works.) Dcs002 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just here to say the same about the tag over the gallery. It's really not such a large gallery anymore, and I don't understand how that tag is justified. As long as it doesn't grow further, I don't see why the gallery can't just be left as is. ENEvery (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal to tighten the gallery and return to its function[edit]

I just removed the tag and added the explanation that the gallery shows the geographic spread of the aurorae. That has been the goal of commenters here, but I'm not sure what happened to it.

There are currently three from the US, three from Germany, and two from the same lat/long in the UK. In the US, the one from SC clearly shows an unusually southward spread, but I'm not sure of the function of the image from MO. The one from IA is a particularly striking image, but aurorae north of 42° latitude are hardly unusual. However, it does illustrate that aurorae tend to be more intense nearer to the magnetic poles. For that reason I think the image in the above section from Sweden should be restored in the gallery. In the UK, both images are at 51°N, 47°N. Of the two, I think the one from Cwmbran, Gwent is more compelling. In Germany, the one in Valhingen doesn't seem to add much, but the two videos comparing visible light with infrared might be better suited to the main body of the article.

What I propose is removing the images from MO, US, and Bray, Berkshire, UK. Then I will restore the image from Sweden that I originally removed to use in the multi image section. (Someone replaced it in that section, not me.) Then I would like to add information about the aurorae themselves in the main body, moving both German videos to that section. That will reduce the gallery from 12 to nine images, each with geographical purpose.

When I started the Aurorae section, it was not my intent that it simply be turned into a tedious list of where sightings occurred, but a discussion of what aurorae are and why they were so unusual in this case. I would like to break that section up, leaving the sightings as they are, but also describing their nature in a separate subheading. Any objections or comments? Dcs002 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an edit following some of these suggestions. Maple Doctor (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic latitudes[edit]

The Melbourne image has been without a magnetic latitude for quite a while, and I've just added some new images (at the expense of others). I would add the magnetic latitudes myself but I don't know how to calculate them. Can someone add them in and also reply here how they figured them out? Maple Doctor (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, figured it out (https://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/coord_calc.html) Maple Doctor (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar storm infobox template[edit]

Hi all. As was mentioned by Spudst3r in dif, we are in need of a solar storm infobox template for use in this as well as other solar storm articles. If anyone is thinking about starting one, I have a work-in-progress template from a while ago in User:CoronalMassAffection/Infobox solar storm that I am planning to finish now that there is renewed interest from this recent storm. I would greatly appreciate help with this. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 09:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. The comprehension of solar storm articles will be greatly improved if a measure like DST can be provided in the infobox for each article to allow for easy comparison of intensity. Spudst3r (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:May_2024_solar_storms&oldid=1224272676"